The final medium means nothing if any of the recording, editing, mixing and/or final mastering are done in the digital domain. Dynamic range compression is typically applied during several stages during the production process. First - on the way into the recorder (whether it is analog tape or a DAW), then during mixing on individual tracks and across the final 2-buss master (master buss compression). Then it's usually compressed and/or limited again by the mastering engineer as they create the final 2-track master.
So, how does vinyl prevent any of this?? It doesn't!
The only change will be that once the final master is made - it will need to be limited an additional time to control the cutting head to be sure it doesn't break through the groove during the cutting of the master vinyl disc. This may bring the overall level down - but there is no change to the damage already done by having 45 minutes of music with a total of 1dBspl of dynamic range. The issue isn't just that the recordings are too loud - it's that they remove the natural dynamics to get the loudness, causing listening fatigue nearly instantly.
Sounds like someone needs to take themselves to an audio engineering class to figure out what exactly happens at all these stages and where the problem really is.
I use a Mac because my livelihood relies on scoring & recording high end audio. My DAW of choice is Digital Performer and my audio HW of choice is the Metric-Halo Mobile I/O 2882. Digital Performer is (and always has been) Mac only...and Metric-Halo only has drivers for Mac. Sure I could switch, but the only comparable software for scoring & production (not just recording, editing & mixing) is Logic, which is Mac only & isn't even half the audio editor that DP is. Pro Tools is out because of the poor/lack of scoring features and the way Digi locks you into their overpriced hardware. Cubase, Nuendo, et al have pretty much the same story. As far as hardware. Well, The MH MIO boxes are superb. I would have to spend a lot more money and have a more complicated setup to stay in the same ballpark from an audio quality & routing flexibility standpoint.
So my choice (like many other's, I would assume) is made by the reason for having the computer. I have the Mac because it is compatible with my HW & SW of choice and gets the job done. The computer is just a tool.
Many practitioners of early music tune to an A415 (hence the term 'Baroque Standard' for such a thing). Antonio Stradivari, builder of the famed Stradivarius violins, was known to tune to A415 (actually A414.97 was what his reference fork measured when found). Most owners/players of Stradivarius violins tune to an A415 and claim it is like having a completely different instrument, in term sof how the violin responds at the tuning it was designed for.
You'll also find that many guitarists (acoustic guitarists particularly, but others too) tune to A415 (or 'a half step down' as you'll hear it referred to). It tends to open up the instrument and also seems to 'sit' better key wise (at least IMO).
The A440 is a new standard, only nearing 70 years now. When decided upon very little was taken into account, though the story goes that the string section was pleased at being noticeably louder at A440 than at lower 'A's. A415 has a much longer history and several heavy hitters backing it up (the entire Bach family, Vivaldi, Mozart, Scarlatti, et al).
Amusingly, some from the Romantic period were fond of tuning up for a more 'intense' timbre...sometimes as high an A462 (which comes out to be about a half step higher than A440)!
Back on topic...I think the inexcusable lack of music education is the reason people have trouble with pitch recognition, not an arbitrary reference for musicians. For example, if you went through life never being trained to discern colors you'd be a visual moron - painting (as it were) is very broad strokes ('it's reddish') rather than having the subtlety to see real differences in similar colors (bright red, brick red, maroon). It's even worse for music, since we are not necessarily penalized for not being astute listeners (in the sense of pitch and timbre). I mean, how many times has someone said "is that a major or minor chord?" to you, or what you thought of a chord grouping in an arrangement? Now when was the last time someone asked your visual opinion? Sadly this is even true for musicians...being trained from a young age to hone sight and speech, but not listening. Hell, I know "musicians" who cannot solfege a simple major scale (you know - do re mi fa sol la ti do) & hit all the notes. Just starting from a note and moving up in a major scale pattern relative to the starting note. And man, relative pitch is so much more important than perfect pitch.
you miss a very important point. Regardless of how cheap some of that equipment is - it's not the same as the equipment you find in a commercial studio (I know, I own a commercial studio). Pro Tools LE is not Pro Tools HD (hence the $15K price difference). Benchmark, Lavry, Lucid all sell very high-end equipment that you will not find in most home studios. Not to mention the cost of qualified professionals...and I'm sorry not everyone who buys prosumer recording equipment has a right to call themselves a recording, mixing or mastering engineer. Good engineers are expensive, back to another posters point...they are expensive because they do what they do better than most.
I hear a lot of "home" recordings that sound like sh*t. Actually, about 99% of them do. Even many "professional" recordings sound bad these days. Sadly, along with a decline in talent in the musician pool, it is further reinforced by the decline of talent on the support end (the studio engineers).
IMO The recording industry isn't losing money because of piracy, they're losing money because no one can be convinced to plop down their hard earned cash for 10 tracks of utter sh*t. Bad writing, poor performance, terrible engineering. Hell, I can't remember the last "mainstream" CD I bought.
So, to bring this all back on topic - DRM or not...doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference until quality returns.
But what if the customer is in the creative field (content creation, audio production, video production). If someone where to go through & steal my movies & audio files they would be grabbing client files that they have no right to. 90% of my iTunes library is mixes of songs I've done for artists and the same holds true for my movie files - they are videos I've either already scored or am in the process of scoring.
So, yes this is a big deal. They are, potentially, grabbing copyrighted material (possibly, yet to be released copyrighted material) that they have no right to.
Singles have always been the metric for music sale success. There was a heyday of album sales (and AOR based radio stations promoting & driving those sales), but what do the record companies expect when they promote singles on the airwaves, strong arm radio stations into playing only their approved cuts (thereby killing off any AOR based programing) and have all but crushed artist development, which leads to cohesive albums and artists with staying power in the first place.
I really find it humorous that record companies complain when they know, full well, they have dug their own graves through their greed. Yes, artist development costs money. Money that is not immediately recouped. But when that nurturing is well placed and you create an artist with a lifespan of 20+ years...and then they get their investment back in spades.
192kHz is marketing hype - Dan Lavry (Lavry Engineering) wrote a great white paper on sampling rates (Google for it - you do know what Google is?). Long and short of it, anything over 60kHz is there for the marketing dept. as it poses no perceivable benefit to the audio quality.
The next phase of audio playback needs go to 24-bit and 60kHz sampling rate (I'll accept 88.2kHz as a reasonable compromise seeing as how it's already available in most recording systems). But the reality is the CD needs to evolve to a 24/60(88.2) playback system - whether that's a SACD or DVD-A I don't much care as long as it is standardized.
And I agree that a large portion of the music listening populace is listening on iPod or in a car (which might just be the worst listening environment known to man, that's used a listening environment). I mean with an average noise floor of 80dBspl how can you expect to really enjoy anything with any dynamics. I think a good part of that is due to the simple fact that most people do not have the 45-60 minutes to sit at home and listen to a good album from beginning to end. So listening is done "on the go" much like eating and communicating. So the music we being produced now is the McDonalds of the music world. Listen on the run...while driving...eating and talking on your mobile...
I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. I've been a Mac user since 1984 (yes, since there were Macs to use - used an Apple ][+ before that). I prefer Firefox to Safari. You see, the issue is that OS X broke so many of Apple's own human interface guidelines that "mac-like" means something completely different (and amorphous) today than it did back in the System 6 or 7 days or even OS 8/9. The side effect of which is that Firefox, while not conforming to typical Mac human interface guideline standards, is no more an offender than just about anything else on OS X. And while I like Safari, particularly its integration with the rest of the OS and Apple apps (like preview & address book), I find its idiosyncrasies to outweigh those advantages. Maybe Safari 3.0 will be better, but for now Firefox seems to be the best browser for me & the sites I visit.
And it's not only me - most of the hard core Macheads I know use Firefox over Safari. It is what it is - and as long as the interface keeps morphing does it really matter what browser I use. Apple will get the interface down one of these days and then there will once again be a standard to aim for.
The plus to it all is that I can also use Firefox on my Windows box and almost forget that I've switches OSes.
There are some legitimate reasons for choosing a MBP over the MB. I, for one, do audio post on my PowerBook, and to accomplish that you need a secondary bus for your audio storage/work drive. I run my audio interface off the on-board FW port and then use a eSATA PC Card for an external drive for the audio files. When working with multi-channel 24-bit/96k audio files you just need 2 data buses, one for the audio interface & one for the audio HDD.
And frankly, I want the fastest CPU available in a laptop. Maybe that extra.33Mhz saves me a total of 2 seconds during heavy audio processing algorithms, but that 2 seconds multiplied by 1000 times a day adds up to a significant savings in time, especially when you're talking about 12 hour days to begin with.
And when Apple works out all the bugs with their MacBook Pros I will upgrade to one. I did the early adopter thing with a PowerBook 540c and since then have always waited a few revs. before buying.
Slashdot Mirror
The final medium means nothing if any of the recording, editing, mixing and/or final mastering are done in the digital domain. Dynamic range compression is typically applied during several stages during the production process. First - on the way into the recorder (whether it is analog tape or a DAW), then during mixing on individual tracks and across the final 2-buss master (master buss compression). Then it's usually compressed and/or limited again by the mastering engineer as they create the final 2-track master.
So, how does vinyl prevent any of this?? It doesn't!
The only change will be that once the final master is made - it will need to be limited an additional time to control the cutting head to be sure it doesn't break through the groove during the cutting of the master vinyl disc. This may bring the overall level down - but there is no change to the damage already done by having 45 minutes of music with a total of 1dBspl of dynamic range. The issue isn't just that the recordings are too loud - it's that they remove the natural dynamics to get the loudness, causing listening fatigue nearly instantly.
Sounds like someone needs to take themselves to an audio engineering class to figure out what exactly happens at all these stages and where the problem really is.
I use a Mac because my livelihood relies on scoring & recording high end audio. My DAW of choice is Digital Performer and my audio HW of choice is the Metric-Halo Mobile I/O 2882. Digital Performer is (and always has been) Mac only...and Metric-Halo only has drivers for Mac. Sure I could switch, but the only comparable software for scoring & production (not just recording, editing & mixing) is Logic, which is Mac only & isn't even half the audio editor that DP is. Pro Tools is out because of the poor/lack of scoring features and the way Digi locks you into their overpriced hardware. Cubase, Nuendo, et al have pretty much the same story. As far as hardware. Well, The MH MIO boxes are superb. I would have to spend a lot more money and have a more complicated setup to stay in the same ballpark from an audio quality & routing flexibility standpoint.
So my choice (like many other's, I would assume) is made by the reason for having the computer. I have the Mac because it is compatible with my HW & SW of choice and gets the job done. The computer is just a tool.
Many practitioners of early music tune to an A415 (hence the term 'Baroque Standard' for such a thing). Antonio Stradivari, builder of the famed Stradivarius violins, was known to tune to A415 (actually A414.97 was what his reference fork measured when found). Most owners/players of Stradivarius violins tune to an A415 and claim it is like having a completely different instrument, in term sof how the violin responds at the tuning it was designed for.
You'll also find that many guitarists (acoustic guitarists particularly, but others too) tune to A415 (or 'a half step down' as you'll hear it referred to). It tends to open up the instrument and also seems to 'sit' better key wise (at least IMO).
The A440 is a new standard, only nearing 70 years now. When decided upon very little was taken into account, though the story goes that the string section was pleased at being noticeably louder at A440 than at lower 'A's. A415 has a much longer history and several heavy hitters backing it up (the entire Bach family, Vivaldi, Mozart, Scarlatti, et al).
Amusingly, some from the Romantic period were fond of tuning up for a more 'intense' timbre...sometimes as high an A462 (which comes out to be about a half step higher than A440)!
Back on topic...I think the inexcusable lack of music education is the reason people have trouble with pitch recognition, not an arbitrary reference for musicians. For example, if you went through life never being trained to discern colors you'd be a visual moron - painting (as it were) is very broad strokes ('it's reddish') rather than having the subtlety to see real differences in similar colors (bright red, brick red, maroon). It's even worse for music, since we are not necessarily penalized for not being astute listeners (in the sense of pitch and timbre). I mean, how many times has someone said "is that a major or minor chord?" to you, or what you thought of a chord grouping in an arrangement? Now when was the last time someone asked your visual opinion? Sadly this is even true for musicians...being trained from a young age to hone sight and speech, but not listening. Hell, I know "musicians" who cannot solfege a simple major scale (you know - do re mi fa sol la ti do) & hit all the notes. Just starting from a note and moving up in a major scale pattern relative to the starting note. And man, relative pitch is so much more important than perfect pitch.
you miss a very important point. Regardless of how cheap some of that equipment is - it's not the same as the equipment you find in a commercial studio (I know, I own a commercial studio). Pro Tools LE is not Pro Tools HD (hence the $15K price difference). Benchmark, Lavry, Lucid all sell very high-end equipment that you will not find in most home studios. Not to mention the cost of qualified professionals...and I'm sorry not everyone who buys prosumer recording equipment has a right to call themselves a recording, mixing or mastering engineer. Good engineers are expensive, back to another posters point...they are expensive because they do what they do better than most.
I hear a lot of "home" recordings that sound like sh*t. Actually, about 99% of them do. Even many "professional" recordings sound bad these days. Sadly, along with a decline in talent in the musician pool, it is further reinforced by the decline of talent on the support end (the studio engineers).
IMO The recording industry isn't losing money because of piracy, they're losing money because no one can be convinced to plop down their hard earned cash for 10 tracks of utter sh*t. Bad writing, poor performance, terrible engineering. Hell, I can't remember the last "mainstream" CD I bought.
So, to bring this all back on topic - DRM or not...doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference until quality returns.
But what if the customer is in the creative field (content creation, audio production, video production). If someone where to go through & steal my movies & audio files they would be grabbing client files that they have no right to. 90% of my iTunes library is mixes of songs I've done for artists and the same holds true for my movie files - they are videos I've either already scored or am in the process of scoring.
So, yes this is a big deal. They are, potentially, grabbing copyrighted material (possibly, yet to be released copyrighted material) that they have no right to.
Singles have always been the metric for music sale success. There was a heyday of album sales (and AOR based radio stations promoting & driving those sales), but what do the record companies expect when they promote singles on the airwaves, strong arm radio stations into playing only their approved cuts (thereby killing off any AOR based programing) and have all but crushed artist development, which leads to cohesive albums and artists with staying power in the first place.
I really find it humorous that record companies complain when they know, full well, they have dug their own graves through their greed. Yes, artist development costs money. Money that is not immediately recouped. But when that nurturing is well placed and you create an artist with a lifespan of 20+ years...and then they get their investment back in spades.
192kHz is marketing hype - Dan Lavry (Lavry Engineering) wrote a great white paper on sampling rates (Google for it - you do know what Google is?). Long and short of it, anything over 60kHz is there for the marketing dept. as it poses no perceivable benefit to the audio quality.
The next phase of audio playback needs go to 24-bit and 60kHz sampling rate (I'll accept 88.2kHz as a reasonable compromise seeing as how it's already available in most recording systems). But the reality is the CD needs to evolve to a 24/60(88.2) playback system - whether that's a SACD or DVD-A I don't much care as long as it is standardized.
And I agree that a large portion of the music listening populace is listening on iPod or in a car (which might just be the worst listening environment known to man, that's used a listening environment). I mean with an average noise floor of 80dBspl how can you expect to really enjoy anything with any dynamics. I think a good part of that is due to the simple fact that most people do not have the 45-60 minutes to sit at home and listen to a good album from beginning to end. So listening is done "on the go" much like eating and communicating. So the music we being produced now is the McDonalds of the music world. Listen on the run...while driving...eating and talking on your mobile...
I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. I've been a Mac user since 1984 (yes, since there were Macs to use - used an Apple ][+ before that). I prefer Firefox to Safari. You see, the issue is that OS X broke so many of Apple's own human interface guidelines that "mac-like" means something completely different (and amorphous) today than it did back in the System 6 or 7 days or even OS 8/9. The side effect of which is that Firefox, while not conforming to typical Mac human interface guideline standards, is no more an offender than just about anything else on OS X. And while I like Safari, particularly its integration with the rest of the OS and Apple apps (like preview & address book), I find its idiosyncrasies to outweigh those advantages. Maybe Safari 3.0 will be better, but for now Firefox seems to be the best browser for me & the sites I visit.
And it's not only me - most of the hard core Macheads I know use Firefox over Safari. It is what it is - and as long as the interface keeps morphing does it really matter what browser I use. Apple will get the interface down one of these days and then there will once again be a standard to aim for.
The plus to it all is that I can also use Firefox on my Windows box and almost forget that I've switches OSes.
There are some legitimate reasons for choosing a MBP over the MB. I, for one, do audio post on my PowerBook, and to accomplish that you need a secondary bus for your audio storage/work drive. I run my audio interface off the on-board FW port and then use a eSATA PC Card for an external drive for the audio files. When working with multi-channel 24-bit/96k audio files you just need 2 data buses, one for the audio interface & one for the audio HDD.
And frankly, I want the fastest CPU available in a laptop. Maybe that extra .33Mhz saves me a total of 2 seconds during heavy audio processing algorithms, but that 2 seconds multiplied by 1000 times a day adds up to a significant savings in time, especially when you're talking about 12 hour days to begin with.
And when Apple works out all the bugs with their MacBook Pros I will upgrade to one. I did the early adopter thing with a PowerBook 540c and since then have always waited a few revs. before buying.